Operation, Organization and Style of a probation service Group B – Probation inside

Some dimensions of the EU harmonization process Organizational harmonization (e.g. Europol, Eurojust) Harmonization of the contents of the organizational activities (e.g. European Prison Rules) Harmonization in higher education (e.g. Bologna process)

Probation = profession Part A) Perspective, purpose, vision, aims a) a) Mission b) b) Core tasks c) c) Target groups Part B) Organization, capacity, new demands Part C) Human capital a) a) Qualification b) b) In-service training c) c) Volunteers

Whom do we serve? (Stakeholders’ rank list according to the UK National Standards

Trust in the (own country’s) legal system (categories based on per cent ‘tend to trust’) % (9) % (9) % (10) Source: Eurobarometer, 61/2004

Prison rates and trust in the legal system ( ) Sources: Eurobarometer 61/ Tapio Lappi-Seppälä, 2004

General tendencies The gradually shifted and redefined criminal policy Financial crisis of the welfare state and privatization of public services

The structure of this workshop Part 1) Perspective, purpose, vision, aims a) a) Mission b) b) Core tasks c) c) Target groups Part 2) Organization, capacity, new demands Part 3) Human capital a) a) Qualification b) b) In-service training c) c) Volunteers

Objectives, mission statement for the probation services Dutch PS: „Less inconvenience, less crime” Finnish PS: to contribute to the security; to reduce recidivism; to break social exclusion that also reproduces crime Danish PS: to prevent recidivism by strengthening the self-confidence and self-discipline of the client as well as strengthening his ability to estimate himself in a social context in order to be able to use this experience in practice Austrian PS: to give offenders the opportunity to be integrated and to gain acceptance as citizens within society to prevent recidivism, and to offer services for conflict resolution taking into account the true interests of the victims Czech PS: the integration of offenders, victim support, and the protection of society Part 1/a: Mission

“Do more with less, and do it faster!” Part 1/a: Mission

(Part 1/a: Mission) Questions for discussion 1. What is the mission statement of the probation service in your country? If you do not have will it be helpful? 2. Can you observe the tendency in your country of diminishing traditional social work concepts and values in probation? 3. Can you observe the tendency in your country of adjusting the probation activities to the goals of other criminal justice agencies? Part 1/a: Mission

Emerging trends  Mediation  Community service  Crime prevention  Victim’s rights, services and compensation  Restorative justice Part 1/b: Core tasks

b) Core tasks

(Part 1/b: ‘Core tasks’) Questions for discussion: 1) What are the core tasks and function of probation? Do they differ by the different phase of criminal justice? Who decides about it? Could we specify the “minimum” level of the service? 2) Do the core tasks differ by target groups? 3) What should we prefer at the beginning: a basic or a generic type of service? How to develop it into a complex service provision? 4) Do you think probation services have to be involved in penal mediation? Part 1/b: Core tasks

1. Which are the most important target groups for probation services? 2. What is the reason for a target group to be selected: the risk, the needs? What else? 3. Whose task is to define a new target group? What might be criteria of it (geographical needs, stakeholders’ demand, political expectations, grant possibilities, etc.)? 4. What about victims? Do they constitute a target group for the probation service? (Part 1/c: ‘Target groups’) Questions for discussion: Part 1/c: Target groups

Part 2: Organization, capacity, new demands Organization:  Public versus private  Judicial versus executive branch of government  Private non-profit versus private for-profit  Purpose built versus generic agencies  Centralized versus decentralized Part 2: Organization

1. Who does and should define the demand for setting up and running probation services? 2. Is the organizational location of the probation service a major concern? 3. Would not it be better to leave probation in the hands of NGOs? 4. Should the organizational structure be bound up with its form? 5. Knowing all the hardship of the probation service why do not we accept NGOs as complex probation services? 6. Would probation services’ traditional values be preserved in lawyer-dominated justice ministries? 7. What are the pros and cons to organize probation and prison service jointly within the framework of MoJ? 8. Should we build up a hierarchical or a matrix type of management structure? (Part B: ‘Organization’) Questions for discussion Part 2: Organization

Part 3) To develop human capital through education, training and development a.) Qualification b.) In-service training c.) Volunteers Part 3: Human Capital

1) In what discipline are the core competencies of probation officers’ grounded (legal/social/managerial)? 2) Which professions/qualifications could be accepted as an adequate qualification for probation workers, taking into consideration the shifts of criminal policies, too? 3) Are these competencies acquired largely through the development of skills, or through the development of a body of professional knowledge and insight? 4) What to do if there is no available PO training at all? 5) Could probation training be linked to trainings offered to the other professionals of the criminal justice system? 6) Could we define the competency barriers of the POs? 7) Do we need a universal European PO training? Part 3/a: Qualification (Part 3/a: ‘Qualification’) Questions for discussion

Important skills and knowledge 1. Risk assessment 2. Individual counselling 3. Group work intervention 4. Court reports 5. Awareness of issues related to child sexual abuse 6. Court work and knowledge of court procedures 7. Probation standards Part 3/b: In-service training Source: Denis Bracken, 2003

1. How can the quality of probation work and probation workers be improved? 2. Knowing the results of the English-Canadian survey what could be necessary minimum and the ideal knowledge of the probation workers in your country? (Social work, law, psychology, special education, etc.) 3. What kind of in-service training is required? (introduction/refreshment course, frequency and duration, students’ field-instructor training, management training, public administration exam, etc.) (Part 3/b: ‘In-service training’) Questions for discussion Part 3/b: In-service training

1) What kind of staff do we need? Professional and/or laymen? 2) How are or can volunteers be used? 3) Why they are used and what is the benefit or the disadvantages of using them? 4) How could we make the role expectations of the volunteers more clear? 5) How could a selection process be designed? Would the volunteers require training(s), supervision and support? What about the overhead costs of it? 6) Do we need professionals for the basic activity and professionals for the specific services (group work, mediation, probation hostel, etc.)? 7) What kind of tasks should we give to the lay volunteers? (Chatting only or quasi-professional tasks as well?) How to define their (minimum and maximum) limits of activity so as to avoid conflicts with the professionals? (Part 3/c: ‘Volunteers’) Questions for discussion Part 3/c: Volunteers